Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
This question of whether quiet zones are more dangerous than regular crossings has not much occurred to me before.  And I can find no informed or definitive answer to prove the answer. That leaves a variety of tentative answers which includes people’s opinions.  Most of these opinions sound like they come from people who either work for a railroad of know a lot about them.  I would say that maybe 90-95% of those opinions are vehemently opposed to quiet zones because they believe that the lack of a horn makes them more dangerous.  Obviously, the people expressing those opinions believe crossings are a problem for railroads, and that quiet zones exacerbate the problem.  And the majority of those opinions include disdain for the people whom they regard as forcing quiet zones upon the railroad companies.  Generally that disdain amounts to the feeling that the people opposing train horn noise are classic NIMBYS, and if they don’t like the noise, they should not have move next to the tracks.  That entire viewpoint makes perfect sense to me.    Other than opinions, another way to find the answer to the quiet zone safety question would be statistical correlation with non-quiet zones crossings. I don’t know if there is an informed answer to the question based on statistics.  There may not be enough quiet zones to draw a statistical correlation or conclusion yet.  Or there may not have yet been enough time to produce sufficient statistics. Other than statistics and opinions, there is the possibility of a determination from a credible source based on some type of experience or knowledge.  One such determination from a credible source is this from the U.P. website: “Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law.” It is here:  <a href="http://www.uprr.com/reus/roadxing/industry/process/horn_quiet.shtml">http://www.uprr.com/reus/roadxing/industry/process/horn_quiet.shtml</a> By far, the most obvious credible source would be the FRA with their quiet zone criteria and authority over implementing quiet zones.  However, all I find from them that gets close to the answer to the question is the rather understated premise that quiet zones have added safety to balance the loss of safety due the removal of the train horn.  Perhaps the FRA does offer a definitive answer somewhere, but I have not seen it.  However, I do find a site from the City of Boulder, CO that cites the FRA for a qualified answer to the question as to whether quiet zones are more dangerous than non-quiet zone crossings.  It says this: Do quiet zones increase the likelihood of accidents at railroad crossings? <ul> <li>FRA      and railroad documentation indicate that quiet zones may increase the      likelihood of accidents at a crossing. In its consideration of      establishing quiet zones, City Council will need to weigh the trade-offs,      as a single tragedy at a railroad crossing will have a significant impact      in our community.</li> </ul> It is here: <a href="http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7853&Itemid=3088#ACCIDENT">http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7853&Itemid=3088#ACCIDENT</a> Some here have speculated that the statement from U.P. is disingenuous and only intended to shield them from liability.  Anything is possible, but I see no reason not to take their rather plain spoken statement to mean what it says.  The only question is how they know that quiet zones are more dangerous.   They only say that they believe that to be the case.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag